The court fee payable is determined based on the relief sought by the plaintiff, and the suit must be valued accordingly for court fee and jurisdiction purposes.

1. When a suit is filed for an injunction restraining a Bank from paying the amount covered by a fixed deposit receipt, is the plaintiff liable to pay court fee on the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipt, treating the suit as a declaratory suit or is it sufficient to pay court fee only on the relief of injunction which he has sought? A question of court fee on which wilt also depend the valuation for purpose of jurisdiction thus arises for consideration in this revision.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court, Varkala praying for a decree:

(a) Prohibiting the 1st defendant bank from releasing the amount covered by the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.F.409160/FBD-38/76 and renewed as 0.307528/ MID/ 25/79 to the 2nd defendant or anybody else.

(b) directing the 1st defendant to release the said amount covered by the said fixed deposit receipt with interest from 24-3-1984 to the plaintiff.

and for other consequential reliefs. He valued the reliefs of injunction under S.27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act at Rs.300/- and paid a total court fee of Rs. 24/-. The value for purpose of jurisdiction was also shown as Rs. 300/-.

3. The plaintiff averred that his father Madhavan had a fixed deposit in his name in the Varkala branch of the Indian Overseas Bank as evidenced by a fixed deposit receipt dated 15-4-1976 and renewed in 1979. Madhavan is dead and the plaintiff, his son claimed the amount covered by the receipt, but the bank refuses to pay on the ground that according to the tenor of the receipts in their possession, the amount was payable to the second defendant. The suit was therefore filed for injunction incorporating the two prayers extracted above.

4. The trial court noticed that the amount deposited in the bank exceeded one lakh and fifty thousand and therefore it had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. In appeal, the Additional Sub Court, Attingal held that the court fee paid for prayer (a) was sufficient; but regarding the mandatory injunction claimed to return the amount to the plaintiff, it was held that the plaintiff was bound to incorporate a prayer for declaration, as there is dispute regarding his right to the amount, and that court fee has to be paid on the amount claimed under S.22 of the Act. As the claim was for over 11/2 lakhs of rupees, the lower court upheld the order of the trial court re-tuning the plaint. These orders are challenged in revision.

5. S.27(c) of the Court Fees Act relating to injunction applicable to the present case reads thus:-27. Suits for injunction - In a suit for injunction

(a) xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx

(c) "In any other case, whether the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees one hundred and fifty whichever is higher".

S. 25(d) (i) & (ii) relating to suit for declaration reads thus:-25. Suits for declaration

(a) xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx

(d) "In other cases

(i) Where the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property and

(ii) Where the subject-matter of the suit is not capable of valuation, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher".

6. The suits for money ate governed by S.22 which reads thus:

22. "Suits for money in a suit for money (including a suit for damage) or compensation, or arrears of maintenance of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically), fee shall be computed on the amount claimed".

7. It is settled law that the court fee payable is to be decided on the basis of the averments in the plaint and the relief sought by the plaintiff. The court, however, will have to look at the substance of the relief sought, at the question of court fee is linked to the substantial relief claimed.

8. in the plaint now filed, the actual relief pra